Conveniently matching the current figures. Either they should have declared that before the result (which they did not as it seems) or have left them out completely, simply stating they want a second vote.
I agree the figures are very close, but still it's the majority. Would they have also called for a second vote if it was reversed?
Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-man_uk_5...
Then there's this, from Larry Elliott in The Guardian:
"The result speaks volumes about the state of
modern Britain. For the better off, a vote to
remain was the obvious thing to do. For the
less well-off, a vote to leave was their chance
to protest about badly paid jobs, zero-hour
contracts, bullying employers, and a sense that
they had been forgotten.
"These economic problems are deep-seated and of
long-standing. Most of them have little to do
with Europe. But the referendum has given
millions of unhappy people a chance to protest.
This is a country divided by wealth, geography
and class." '
Finally, there's this: "... people of the UK voted to leave the
European Union with a majority of 52 percent
- and according to Google, they don't really
know why."
-- http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/brexit-google-search-trends-tech/
It's clear we are in a post-facts "democracy" - the "Leave" campaign are already saying that the things they promised, the things they campaigned on, won't happen.To the Americans here - good luck with Trump in your elections.
That's probably a good thing. A union probably shouldn't be able to strike with 51% of a 22% turnout.
So it would have been nice to see similar standards for the referendum.